United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-10819

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Jaquan Eaddy, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:22-CR-39-1 

______________________________

Before Davis, Smith, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Jaquan Eaddy pleaded guilty, with the benefit of a written plea 

agreement, to Hobbs Act robbery. He now appeals the district court’s denial 

of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. 

We pretermit whether the instant appeal is barred by the appellate 

waiver in Eaddy’s plea agreement, as his appeal fails on the merits. See 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 11, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-10819 Document: 00516747898 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/11/2023
No. 22-10819

2

United States v. Story, 439 F.3d 226, 230-31 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. 

Smith, 528 F.3d 423, 424 (5th Cir. 2008).

Our review of the district court’s denial of Eaddy’s withdrawal motion 

is for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Lord, 915 F.3d 1009, 1013 

(5th Cir. 2019). After the district court accepts a guilty plea, but before it 

imposes a sentence, a defendant may withdraw the plea by showing a “fair 

and just reason” for seeking withdrawal. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B).

The district court considers: (1) whether the defendant has asserted his 

innocence; (2) whether withdrawal would prejudice the Government; 

(3) whether the defendant has delayed in filing his withdrawal motion; 

(4) whether withdrawal would substantially inconvenience the court; 

(5) whether close assistance of counsel was available; (6) whether the original 

plea was knowing and voluntary; and (7) whether withdrawal would waste 

judicial resources. United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 343-44 (5th Cir. 

1984).

Eaddy has failed to carry his burden of showing that the district court 

abused its discretion in denying his motion based on the totality of the 

circumstances. See Lord, 915 F.3d at 1013-14. He contends that he did not 

unreasonably delay in filing his withdrawal motion, in which he argued that 

the Hobbs Act violated the Commerce Clause, because it was based on two 

Supreme Court decisions that were issued shortly before he filed his motion, 

N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), and Dobbs 

v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022). We are 

unpersuaded that his delay was justified, as he has not made a convincing 

argument that his withdrawal motion was based on any new legal standard 

articulated in Bruen or Dobbs. 

We also disagree with Eaddy’s argument that withdrawal would not 

substantially inconvenience the court, prejudice the government, or waste 

Case: 22-10819 Document: 00516747898 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/11/2023
No. 22-10819

3

judicial resources, and we defer to the district court’s finding that those 

factors weigh against withdrawal. See Carr, 740 F.2d at 345; United States v. 

Clark, 931 F.2d 292, 295 (5th Cir. 1991). Moreover, as Eaddy concedes, his 

guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, and the “close assistance of counsel” 

factor is at best neutral. Carr, 740 F.2d at 344. Further, even if we were to 

agree with the district court’s finding that Eaddy has asserted his factual 

innocence, that would be the only Carr factor weighing in favor of 

withdrawal. Accordingly, Eaddy has not shown that the district court abused 

its discretion in denying his withdrawal motion. See Lord, 915 F.3d at 1013-

14.

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 22-10819 Document: 00516747898 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/11/2023